- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Sydney helmet protest ride (via Facebook video).jpgAussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides
Cyclists have been riding without helmets across Australia today in protest at mandatory helmet laws they believe are discouraging people from cycling. The Sydney ride was closed down by New South Wales Police with long-time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott picking up yet another fine.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets.
Alan Todd, the president of Freestyle Cyclists, which organised the protests, told the Guardian: “We find that the mandatory helmet law is the single greatest barrier to the uptake of bicycle use in Australia. It has created an image of cycling as a high-risk activity, and practically killed off the casual everyday use of the bike.”
On its Facebook page, Freestyle Cyclists reported: "A tale of two cities. In Melbourne, the Freestyle Cyclists Helmet Optional Bike Ride attracted zero police activity. Meanwhile in Sydney today, the bike hating capital of Australia (maybe the world), the police closed it down. Threatened with a $330 fine two people including long time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott took one for the team.
“Rides also took place in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and across the ditch in Wellington where police no longer prioritize the helmet law.”
There’s some Ten News footage of the Sydney ride.
Rudy Botha, who co-ordinated it commented: “With Sydney facing a lot of transport challenges, we need to be encouraging people to look at riding a bicycle as alternative.
“Threatening them with one of the world’s highest fines for something that is considered normal in most countries, is having the opposite effect.”
Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.
“It beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”
Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, expressed support for the protests.
“We think helmets should be a choice. We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional.
“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank. But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Oldfatgit 4 min 19 sec ago
I guess I'm odd as this time of year I'd normally do a 4 hour gravel ride on 1/2 bottle of water, a latte and a bacon roll....
- Eton Rifle 52 min 39 sec ago
The system for elderly drivers in the UK is insane. Basically, once you hit 70 years old, you have to re-apply for your driving licence every three...
- Moist von Lipwig 1 hour 21 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 2 hours 36 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 1 hour 24 min ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- TheBillder 10 hours 37 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 10 hours 53 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 10 hours 56 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 11 hours 34 sec ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
Add new comment
240 comments
I don't think so but the smugness invariably goes up a couple of notches.
No thanks, once was more than enough.
Simon, read again what I said. Might help. Also I am expressing opinion.
And who proclaimed you to be the expert?
Am you troll?
Obs, the clues in the name...
The moomins are not trolls.
Not wanting to get drawn into such a heated discussion about such a contraversial subject but...
The moomins are trolls.
Evidence: A study by Buzzfeed....
https://www.buzzfeed.com/robynwilder/things-you-may-not-know-about-the-m...
Plus, like, the main character is called Moomintroll.
(and helmets make me sweaty
)
My mistake. Sorry.
And presumably also my mistake that this got in completely the wrong thread. Don't know how that happened.
A quick Google shows over 400 deaths and over 12000 serious injuries in NSW from motor crashes in the past 12 months...and it seems that what will save lives, from that video, is to give a ticket to a middle aged woman wearing a floppy hat riding a shopping bike at walking pace. Crazy.
If helmets can't be proved to have a safety effect, then why do all the StormTroopers wear them?
Mind you, stormtrooper armour always seems like a waste of time. If you were running the Imperial military, you spend most of your time fighting soldiers shooting at you with blasters. So wouldn’t you want your armour to protect you from blaster fire as a minimum? Otherwise whats the point? Yet it really doesn’t seem to...
Sorry, OT, but y’know...
I find your lack of faith disturbing!
With StomTroopers, their helmet and armour is for general protection against all kinds of mishaps (e.g. slipping on banana skins). Obviously, a helmet isn't going to protect against a full-on blaster strike - that's ridiculous to expect that. StormTrooper helmets are designed to protect against a 1-2 metre drop onto a flat surface at speeds of up to 12mph - the empire deems that any impact more than that isn't cost-effective to protect against.
gif-Stormtrooper-workout-809403.gif
One stormtrooper bangs his head boarding a rebel ship so now you want all stormtroopers to wear helmets, is that it?
That was Carl - he's such a klutz.
StormTrooperHeadBump.gif
Saved his life though.
He gave up chasing down the rebel scum and instead took up track cycling with some success.
508912926.jpg
It's encouraging how he turned his life around after suffering through a bout of depression.
GFQg4s7.jpg
Have you _seen_ the KSI rates for Imperial stormtroopers? Clearly those things affect their ability to see what they are shooting at, at the very least. As a bonus, they also make it simple for subversives to pass unnoticed - very much like high-viz vests, slip one of those on and nobody pays attention to you, making you effectively invisible, and allowing you to rescue princesses to your heart's content. Even if you're suspiciously short.
Come to think of it, they should have attacked the deathstar on bicycles. Never mind the force, use the power of SMIDSY.
Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.
"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit. Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.
I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it.
Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies.
Also if it didn't work I don't know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.
..and StormTroopers.
Don't forget the StormTroopers.
Neuro surgeons tend to talk about their own personal experiences., or anecdotes, as opposed to statistical data. Statistical data at the population level is the only reliable way to measure the effect of something like helmet compulsion. Read what Alan Todd said in the article.
As for the idea that because helmets are appropriate for other activities therefore they must be appropriate for cycling, I'm not sure what listing a bunch of completely unrelated activities where people may or may not wear helmets proves. Wearing a helmet when rock climbing is obviously a good idea for at least a couple of reasons 1 - because falling rocks are quite common and 2 - a climbing helmet provides very effective protection in that situation. On the other hand I struggle to see why anybody would need a helmet when wind surfing, but then I've never tried it. I suppose it could protect against seagul attacks
.
I agree with the personal choice depending on the circumstances. Also, having lived in New South Wales for 12 years I agree with you about NSW cops. This guy is typical of them in my experience. I lived there when helmets became compulsory. Ironically the law was introduced as a result of campaigning by cycling groups for increased safety for cyclists. In typical lazy, dishonest fashion the politicians brought in the compulsory helmet law then congratulated themselves when the number of deaths and injuries were reduced in exactly the same proportion as the reduction in cyclists on the roads.
Physics 101:
The kinetic energy of an object is a function of mass and speed.
I am not expecting car to fall from a cliff on me, but being hit by a hard object (car, lamppost, etc) is functionally in the same ballpark - dissipation of energy.
As it happens I did physics 101 in my university days so I know what kinetic energy is and it's proportional to mass and the square of velocity (not speed, it's an important difference).
Do you really expect your bicycle helmet to protect you in a collision with a car? I suppose in some circumstances it might provide some amount of protection but no bicycle helmet manufacturer will claim that it does. Simplifying it, bicycle helmets are designed to provide a certain level of protection in a fairly specific type of impact. The forces involved in motor vehicle collisions are far outside the bounds, in magnitude and direction, of what bicycle helmets are designed for. Any protection it offers in a collision with a car is purely incidental. As I said, this is very different to a rock climber wearing a climbing helmet (I own one of those too) because the possibility of a falling rock is far greater than crashing a bicycle (for most of us on the road, anyway) and, most importantly, climbing helmets are actually very effective at protecting against falling rocks up to a certain size.
Working as a clinical scientist in a Medical Physics department I'm probably as far ahead as Physics 102 by now.
KE is indeed a function of mass and speed, and the sort of KE an EN1078 lid is built to deal with is about falling over and hitting one's head on the floor. After car crashes, trips and falls are the most popular way to get a serious head injury, so I take it you wear a helmet for stuff like walking around on hard ground, getting in and out of the bath (slippy bathroom floors are a genuine risk issue in causing head injuries) and using the stairs (rather more killed falling down the stairs in the UK than on bikes)? Probably not, because doing all of those things you feel psychologically safe, but on a bike you've bought in to the hype it's all terribly dangerous despite it not being much (if any) worse than the potentially lethal things you're happy with.
The much vaunted Dutch infrastructure doesn't stop anyone riding in to lamp posts, falling off and banging their heads etc., yet with a very low rate of helmet wearing they have a very low rate of serious head injury (being hit by a car is way past the design spec of a cycle helmet, by the way), despite the ground being generally just as hard and the force of gravity much the same.
The context of a cycle helmet is getting back on your bike and finishing your race rather than sitting down holding your head going "ow" and abandoning. The design spec is not that high: they should mitigate minor injuries, they will very probably not save you from serious or fatal ones.
For your next science session it's Cognitive Bias 101, all those ways you can convince yourself that your existing choice must have been the best one...
an overall excellent response, but I'm afraid I have to pick you up on one small, but important point. The Netherlands is / are? very flat, so on average they are closer to the ground than everywhere else, and therefore gravity is heavier, pound for pound.
Tuts! Euro for Euro. I expect more.
Or is it Euro for pound or pound for euro?
Yes, but. Neurosurgeons are well known as experts on everything which lies outside of their specialized domain of knowing how to cut which bits out. If you don't believe me then you haven't been paying to this man:
https://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/the_7_most_impressively_stupid_things_b...
You mean like this one?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-helmets-dont-provid...
In the interests of balance I should add that it's equally easy to find ones that hold counter views.
I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it. Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies. Also if it didn't work I don't know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.[/quote]
I suggest you have a chat with trauma and neuro surgeons about all those cases they see from car accidents. Despite air bags etc, auto accidents cause the greatest amount of head trauma - no great call to make helmets compulsory in cars is there?
You're looking at the data in the wrong way.
If you have an accident and hit your head a helmet will very likely reduce the severity of that injury. No one denies that. But if drivers treat you like a motorcyclist because you wear a helmet then that negates the risk reduction. And that is the measure, a reduction in risk, a reduction in the number of incidents per mile cycled, not a reduction of severity of injury per occurrence of injury.
If you look at the ratio of helmet wearing in cyclists who get knocked off bikes, over 60% wear helmets, so on that basis wearing a helmet is a risk factor in being knocked off.
So it should be up to the individual to choose for themselves, children excluded.
Pages